Contributions in the name of another; excessive contributions; corporate/union contributions; foreign national contributions; federal government contractor contributions; failure to report contribution; transfer of state (non-federal) funds to the candidate’s campaign committee for federal election

DISPOSITION:

(a) No reason to believe*

[re: failure to report contribution; transfer of state (non-federal) funds to the candidate’s campaign committee for federal election; contributions in the name of another; excessive contributions; corporate contributions; foreign national contributions]

(b) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

Sent admonishment letter.

[re: failure to report contribution; transfer of state (non-federal) funds to the candidate’s campaign committee for federal election]

No reason to believe*

[re: contribution in the name of another; excessive contributions; corporate contributions; foreign national contributions]

(c) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

Sent admonishment letter.

[re: transfer of state (non-federal) funds to the candidate’s campaign committee for federal election]

No reason to believe*

(d-h) No reason to believe*

[re: contributions in the name of another; excessive contributions; corporate and/or union contributions; federal government contractor contributions; foreign national contributions]

The complaint alleged that Friends of Dan Hynes “FODH” (a state account) made contributions to various state campaign committees contingent upon those committees making contributions to Hynes for Senate (federal account) and the state campaign committees made contributions to Hynes for Senate with non-federal funds. Based on the information in the complaint, responses from respondents, and review, the Commission found no reason to believe that the respondents violated the Act. The complaint identified a direct contribution from FODH to Hynes for Senate which the complaint made no specific allegation. The Commission found reason to believe that FODH and Hynes for Senate violated the law by transferring funds from Mr. Hyne’s state committee to his federal committee. The Commission decided to take no further action, send an admonishment letter and require disgorgement of the funds. The Commission also found reason to believe Hynes for Senate violated the law for failing to disclose the contributions, but take no further action and send an admonishment letter.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from these matters are available from the
Commission's web site at http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs by entering
5406 under case number. They are also available in the FECs Public
Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

Excessive contributions/earmarked contributions; contributions in the name of another

DISPOSITION:

(a-h) No reason to believe*

[re: any violation of the FECA in this matter]

The complaint states that Quentin Nesbitt contributed the maximum amount in the 2004 primary and general elections to the principal campaign committee of Geoffrey Davis and another $15,000 to six different political action committees (PACs). These PACs then made contributions to the 2004 Geoffrey Davis for Congress Committee within nine days of their receipt of the Nesbitt contributions. The complainant alleged that because of the timing of the contributions and the contributions patterns, these contributions were earmarked under the Commission’s regulations, were excessive to the 2004 Davis Committee, and were contributions in the name of another. In a notarized affidavit, Nesbitt states that he did not instruct the respondent PACs to contribute to the 2004 Davis Committee and that he did not know that the PACs would contribute to the campaign. After review of the available information, the Commission found no reason to believe the respondents violated the law and closed the file.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from these matters are available from the Commission's web site at http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs by entering 5445 under case number. They are also available in the FECs Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

*There are four administrative stages to the FEC enforcement process:

1. Receipt of proper complaint

3. "Probable cause" stage

2. "Reason to believe" stage

4. Conciliation stage

It requires the votes of at least four of the six Commissioners
to take any action. The FEC can close a case at any point after reviewing
a complaint. If a violation is found and conciliation cannot be reached,
then the FEC can institute a civil court action against a respondent.